"The price of justice is eternal publicity." Arnold Bennett
| Intel V. Hamidi Developments |
Intel Dismissed 2nd Cuase Of Action Intel's Waver Of Money Damages Intel Drops Damages and Nuisance Hamidi Wins Ruling On Intel's Motio
Intel Dismissed 2nd Cause OF Action
____________________________________________________________________________________
Michael A. Jacobs (Bar No. 111664)
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Intel Corporation________________________________________________________
Insert name of court and name of judicial district and branch court, if any:
Sacramento County Superior and Municipal Court
_______________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Intel Corporation DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi and FACEINTEL,a purported California nonprofit organizati
_______________________________________________________________________
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CASE NUMBER: 98-AS-05067
[ ] Personal Injury, Property Damage, or Wrongful Death
[ ] Motor Vehicle [ ] Other
[ ] Family Law
[ ] Eminent Domain
[X] Other (specify): Nuisance ________________________________________________________A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return Is provided with the document.
1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows:
(6) [X] Other (specify):* Second cause of action (nuisance)a. (1) [ ] With prejudice (2) [X] Without prejudice
b. (1) [ ] Complaint (2) [ ] Petition
(3) [ ] Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(4) [ ] Cross-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(5) [ ] Entire action of all parties and all causes of action
Date: April 17, 1999
Michael A. Jacobs (Signed by Michael Jacobs)________________________________________________________
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF [X] ATTORNEY [ ] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) Attorney or party without attorney for: Intel Corporation If dismissal requested is of specified parties only, of specified causes of action only, or of specified cross-complaints only, so state and identify the parties, causes of action. or cross-complaints to be dismissed.
[X] Plaintiff/Petitioner [ ] Defendant/Respondent [ ] Cross-complainant
__________________________________________________________________
2. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given. **
Date: April 17, 1999
Michael A. Jacobs
(Signed by Michael Jacobs)(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF [X] ATTORNEY [ ] PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
Attorney or party without attorney for: Intel Corporation ** If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative [X] Plaintiff/Petitioner [ ] Defendant/Respondentrelief - is on file, the attorney for cross-complainant (respondent) [ ] Cross-complainant
must sign this consent If required by Code of Civil Procedure section
581(l) or (l)
__________________________________________________________________________
(To be completed by clerk)
3. [ ] Dismissal entered as requested on (date):
4. [ ] Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name):
5. [ ] Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify):
6. [ ] a. Attorney or party without attorney notified on (date):
b. Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide
[ ] a copy to conform [ ] means to return conformed copy
Date: Clerk, by , DeputyDeputy
Form Adopted by the
Judicial Council Of California REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Code of Civil Procedure. S 581 el seq.
982(a)(5) (Rev. January 1. 19971) Cal. Rules of Court rules 383, 1233
Intel's Waver Of Money Damages
| LINDA E. SHOSTAK (Bar No. 64599) |
| MICHAEL A. JACOBS (BAR No. 111664) |
| MORRISON & FOERSTER |
| 425 Market Street |
| San Francisco, California 94105-2482 |
| Telephone: (415)268-7000 |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff |
| INTEL CORPORATION |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO |
| INTEL CORPORATION, | No. 98AS05067 |
Plaintiff |
Department: 53 |
| v. | Intel's |
WAIVER OF MONEY |
|
| DAMAGES | |
| KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI and | |
| FACE - Intel, a purported California | Opposition Due: Apr. 5, 1999 |
| nonprofit organization, | Reply Due: Apr. 14, 1999 |
Defendant |
Hearing Date: Apr. 19, 1999 |
| Trial Date: Not set | |
Plaintiff INTEL CORPORATION hereby expressly waives its claim for money damages in its Complaint.
Dated: April 17, 1999
LINDA E. SHOSTAK |
| MICHAEL A. JACOBS |
| KURT E. SPRINGMANN |
| MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP |
|
(signed by Michael Jacobs) |
| Michael A. Jacobs |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff |
| INTEL CORPORATION |
INTEL's WAIVER sf-676976
DATE & TIME: April 19, 1999 DEPT. NO: 53
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CONTY OF SACRAMENTO
JUDGE : JOHN R. LEWIS CLERK : S. SLOCUMB
RECORDER : NONE BAILIFF : C. UMALI
_________________________________________________________ 98AS05067 INTEL CORPORATION VS. KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, ET ALMOTION FILED BY: JACOBS, MICHAEL A.
ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
JACOBS, MICHAEL A. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
SPRINGMAN, KIRK ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
HURD, DAVID J. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
__________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF PROCEEDING: MOTION TO STRIKE
TENTATIVE RULING: Intel's Motion is DENIED
Intel Corporation's Notice of Motion is for "summary judgment in favor of Intel and against (Defendant) because (defendant) committed trespass to Intel's chattels . . . . ""Defendant, in opposition papers, notes that the motion does not address Count 2 of the Complaint (Nuisance); and defendant addresses the motion as a motion for summary adjudication as to Count One. Presumably, this is a waiver by defendant of any application of the principle that a party cannot notice a motion for summary judgment, and based on such notice secure a summary adjudication of a single count. Application of waiver here would not be prejudicial to defendant, as the moving papers in all respects except the notice of motion and continual reference to summary "judgment" make clear that the evidence and arguments are addressed only to Count One. Were that the only procedural hiatus, the Court would properly proceed to adjudicate the motion. But, the Complaint herein seeks both permanent injunctive relief and damages as to Count One. The moving papers and separate statement do not address the question of damages; Plaintiff has neither dismissed nor waived nor abandoned its damage claim. The granting of a summary adjudication must fully dispose of a cause of action. Because the moving papers make no attempt to address the damage claims related to Count One, the burden never shifted to Defendant to come forward with evidence. The Court cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on Count One.
The minute order is effectively immediately; no formal order or notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice.
COURT RULING
After hearing oral argument, the Court continued this matter to 4/28/99.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DATE & TIME: April 19, 1999 DEPT. NO: 53
JUDGE : JOHN R. LEWIS CLERK : S. SLOCUMB
RECORDER : NONE BAILIFF : C. UMALI
________________________________________________________
98AS05067 INTEL CORPORATION VS. KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, ET AL
MOTION FILED BY: JACOBS, MICHAEL A.
BOOK: DEPT 53 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR and MUNICIPAL COURTS
PAGE: 285
Date: April 19, 1999 BY:_____________________________DEPUTY
CASE NO: 98AS05067
CASE TITLE: INTEL CORPORATION VS. KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, ET AL
DISTRIB:
KEN HAMIDI WINS RULING ON INTEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT.
Judge Lewis of the Sacramento Superior Court issued a tentative ruling Friday, April 16, denying Intel's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by Intel against Ken Hamidi. The ruling is tentative only because Intel is given one final opportunity to attempt to persuade the judge to reverse his decision Monday, April 19, in oral argument before the court. A reversal is highly unlikely, particularly in light of the details of Judge Lewis' decision.
A summary judgment motion is a proceeding in which the moving party (in this case the plaintiff Intel) asks the court to decide the case against the other party without providing the other party the benefit of a trial on the merits. A successful summary judgment motion would have prevented Ken Hamidi from (1) defending himself in court and (2) telling his side of the story. Judge Lewis refused to permit Intel to sue Hamidi and then deny Hamidi the opportunity to defend against the charges.
This is the second intermediate victory for Mr. Hamidi in this lawsuit brought against him by Intel. Mr. Hamidi's first small success came several months ago when Intel attempted to schedule the summary judgment motion mere months after filing suit against Hamidi. This "rush to judgment" by Intel was objected to by Hamidi in a pro per brief submitted to Judge Lewis (without the assistance of a lawyer.) The judge agreed with Mr. Hamidi that the scheduling of the summary judgment motion demanded by Intel was premature, and told Intel's attorneys at that time that they had the option of either rescheduling to a later date to permit Hamidi the opportunity to conduct discovery, or if they declined to do that, then he would dismiss their case against them in its entirety.
In an ironic twist of fate, Intel has lost the summary judgment motion that they were so eager to press upon Mr. Hamidi. As mentioned by Harvard Law School in their article submitted to the Court, Intel is battling a "poorly financed army of one." And so far, the poorly financed army of one is prevailing...
